Thing is - in my America, you're either for killing the bad guy or you are the bad guy. There's no wishy-washy middle ground. You know, Jesus may have once joked about turning the other cheek. But gents, you only have two cheeks - and rest assured that Big JC never meant for you to get your ass whooped! No sir. Long girly hair or not, Jesus wasn't no wussy peacenik. I should know, because he sits on my shoulder all day long and talks to me, saying heavy Jesus-like stuff like "George, if I wasn't busy whispering my divine plan directly into your brain stem, then hell, I'd be out in the street snapping those whining streaker hippy traitors' flimsy little chicken necks."

it was the greasy, back-stabbing homosexuals, along with the faggot-sympathizing, free-thinking artists who infected and destroyed his decent, righteously Christ-worshipping Empire.

I just can't get over this, I am sitting here in a daze that a "person" so full of hate could possibly be representing my country. I am so utterly embarrassed that anyone might assume that because I am a US citizen that I could agree with even 1% of this diatribe. This "man" is truly extremely scary to me.

He doesn't care for human rights, he doesn't care for freedom. All he cares is that he gets to force his hateful and biggoted views on MY country and the world.

Dubya shows no ability in his speeches or impromptu comments, to rapid-fire adjectives like this. He is much more into 'ya know', smirking, and repitition. 'it just goes on and on and on...' (alleged evasions by Saddam Hussein for 12 years) or 'it's a re-run of a bad movie' (again, Saddam Hussein)

Originally posted by Els' 3 OnesOver the top it may be...................but deep inside myself I have no doubt that this man says crap like this privately. I can just feel the disdain for any not in his camp.............

El

I completely agree, I have no doubt that he does feel that way. And my first impression (before I knew it was a parody) is that surely even he isn't stupid enough to say this is public.

NM said: "I see people here also seemingly believing that if its on the internet and supports their views its just gotta be true."

Apples-to-Oranges comparison: taking apples (honest mistakes relating to noticing Internet addresses and/or knowing the differences in what comes after the dot...) and comparing them to oranges (as intimated in the quote... preferred use of bogus online sources because they support certain views).

And let's face it: The page in question IS at a well-known political satire page. Just because one doesn't like it, doesn't mean that it is not protected by the first amendment OR that it was presented as fact at that page.

(And just because one may not agree with, or like the content of a post, doesn't mean the content isn't true. One can do more research at widely-valued resources to cross reference. It does take time, but it is time well-spent.)

You learn as you go. And you pay your dues. Sometimes it's the "garbage in; garbage out" thing that is just choice and free will. Some folks, no matter what, prefer info that keeps them feeling comfy. If they don't accept challenge well, then posting online may simply not be for them.

All that said, yes, one must be careful..

The Internet is FULL of accurate info and also fun, silly things, as well as rife with garbage..you pays your money and you takes your chances...Joyce in the mts.

NM- It's interesting because I see people do the same thing with the news. If it's on the news, it must be true. I believe no matter what the source, cross-referencing is important, especially these days where on my stations you can find opinion marketed as fact.

I forgot to add that I think the news situation is far more dangerous than the internet. Many, many people watch the news with the assumption that what they're seeing is fact because, well, it's supposed to be. I think far fewer people view the internet that way. As far as some of the sites people have posted here, I think some question the validity because the theory and fact presented is extremely different from what they hold true and it so far from the main stream. But what we've proved with the news example is that being main stream doesn't equal truth.

After what just went down with the Washington Post, NY Times and the leaks straight from the mouth of Kenneth Starr (despite it being illegal) to these publications (which were printed to slander the Clinton administration but printed as factual evidence, which it was not), anything is possible.

snip>>> "'We are trying to change the tone in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship,' said Grover Norquist, a leading Republican strategist, who heads a group called Americans for Tax Reform.

*....And here is the kicker!!!!!!....* :

"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape, " Norquist, a onetime adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, citing an axiom of House conservatives." <<<end snip.

Yet another instance of these guys revealing repressed sexual proclivities? THIS is what is driving governance of this country now? And women think this is good?...and OK?

(I personally, don't see too much difference in the content of this article and the WH.org satire from the standpoint of "Wha-wha-whaaaaaat?", that it elicits. And what's more...is...it's REAL!)

Could this administration, RNC, or those quoted get any more blatant in the concepts and choice of words used to communicate and promote their agenda?

WWJD? WWFT? (What would Freud think?)

...Don't know...it just reminded me of the OP in this thread somehow, only worse and more twisted, because it's real...Joyce in the mts. (edited for spelling)